Director of Public Prosecutions v Richardson
[2023] VCC 169
•10 February 2023
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CR 21-00202
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| STEWART RICHARDSON |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE BAYLES |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 November 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 February 2023 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Richardson |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2023] VCC 169 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords: Dangerous driving causing serious injury; Conduct endangering persons; Plea of guilty; Community Corrections Order; Plea during COVID – 19.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s319(1A), s23; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 6AAA.
Cases Cited: Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Rossi v The Queen [2021] VSCA 228; Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
Sentence: Community corrections order for 3 years with 200 hours of unpaid community work; Cancel licence and disqualified from obtaining another licence for 18 months.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr S. Devlin | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr P. Smallwood | Paul Vale Criminal Law |
HIS HONOUR:
1Stewart Richardson, you pleaded guilty to an indictment containing one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury and one charge of conduct endangering persons. The maximum penalties for each of these offences is five years' imprisonment.
2This sentence follows a sentence indication hearing that was conducted on 22 August 2022 where, after hearing detailed submissions from both the prosecution and defence, I indicated that if you were to plead guilty to these two charges, I would likely impose upon you a community corrections order. Following that indication, you entered pleas of guilty to the two charges on the indictment before this court now, and the plea hearing was conducted on 18 November 2022.
3At the conclusion of that hearing, I ordered an assessment for your suitability for a community corrections order. I have received and read that report. Mr Devlin, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution at both the sentence indication and plea hearings, filed and read to the court a summary of prosecution opening upon plea dated 17 November 2022. I adopt that summary as part of my reasons for sentence.
4In short compass, the offending is as follows. The victim in this matter is Brinsley Kendrick Teller. At the time of the incident, he was 31 years of age and lived next door to you. He was employed full-time as an electrician. He lived with his partner, Teneille Redwin. At the time of the incident, you were 51 years old.
5In 2017, you purchased an unregistered white 2004 Holden Caprice sedan. There were numerous modifications to that car, from what I gather, substantially increasing its performance capabilities. [The vehicle was later registered by you.]
6In 2019, you became a licensed member of Australian National Drag Racing Authority, referred to as ANDRA. You then held a super street licence which allowed you to access drag racing venues. I was informed that in September 2019, you participated in at least two 4-mile drag races at the Calder Park Raceway. In November 2019, you participated in a Street Machine Drag Challenge event that was held at Calder Park Raceway.
7The prosecution submitted that you had considerable experience and expertise in driving at high speed in various conditions, and that included on bitumen surfaces in this modified Holden vehicle.
8On 25 January 2020, you took the victim, Brinsley Teller, for a drive in the Holden vehicle. Teller was in the front passenger seat. You drove to Kalman Drive in Boronia, which is in an industrial zone about 3 kilometres away from Arcadia Avenue where you lived. Kalman Drive is a 50 kilometre per hour zone. The street is 680 metres long. It travels in a northerly direction for 400 metres before veering to the left and continuing for another 280 metres. The street is a flat bitumen road that is approximately 11.93 metres wide with concrete gutters on either side.
9As part of the investigation, police retrieved various portions of CCTV footage that were obtained from a number of locations in Kalman Drive. Some of these captured your driving and the incident and were played at the sentence indication hearing before me.
10At 7.44 pm that evening, your vehicle is depicted on CCTV footage moving in a westerly direction on Kalman Drive. The footage shows the vehicle slowing down and moving closer to the gutter outside 43-44 Kalman Drive. You can be seen in the driver's seat. Teller can be seen in the front passenger seat wearing a seatbelt.
11You performed a U-turn and then drove in an easterly direction. Moments later, the car appears on some CCTV footage as it moved past
43-45 Kalman Drive. The car moved from the left side of the road to the centre of the road and, as it straightened up, smoke emanated from the rear of the car as it was driven along the street.12The prosecution case is that you continued to accelerate to a fast speed. As a result of the speed and/or the manner in which you drove, the rear tyres deposited rubber onto the road that left scuff marks or skid marks. The rear wheels of the car locked, causing parallel scuff marks for a distance of 108 metres. Within seconds and about 72.5 metres from the start of the scuff marks, the car commenced to rotate to the left. The car was in a spinning skid as the rear wheels had locked, causing the car to rotate in an anticlockwise direction. The car then drove partially across the driveway of
36-38 Kalman Drive where the driver's side tyres remained on the road.13The prosecution case is that you attempted to correct the direction of the car by steering to the right. That caused the car to rotate to the right. It travelled east along the nature strip opposite 35-37 Kalman Drive where it collided with a tree on the nature strip.
14The impact of the car was to the front passenger side and headlight area, causing extensive damage. The force of the impact was sufficient to dislodge the front passenger seat where Teller was sitting and deposit it onto the rear seats of the car, striking a tree, causing the car to become airborne and rotate almost 90 degrees anticlockwise. The tree snapped, the trunk was uprooted, and part of the tree fell to the nature strip. Parts of the car were strewn across the road and the nature strip, including the front passenger-side wheel, which was located in the middle of the road, about 58 metres from the point of impact.
15After colliding with the first tree, the car had sufficient momentum to travel along the nature strip until it struck another tree on the nature strip. The point of impact was the driver's side of the car. That tree was 15 metres from the point of first impact. The car was torn open and wrapped around the tree. You were trapped in the driver's seat and struggled to breathe. That is the conduct that constitutes Charge 1.
16A person by the name of Jason Honan had walked out of a nearby factory and walked to his vehicle on the street as your vehicle drove past. The prosecution case is that the manner in which you drove your car along Kalman Drive also placed Jason Honan in danger of serious injury; thus Charge 2, being reckless conduct endangering persons, is made out. Upon seeing the collision, Jason Honan immediately called Triple 0.
17Another two people, being John Hind and Tian Hancock, were working at a factory in Kalman Drive when they heard the sound of your car engine. They got into Hind's car and travelled to the scene of the crash. When they arrived, they saw you trapped in the vehicle, struggling to breathe. Hind provided what assistance to you he could. He then attempted to assist Teller, who was unconscious in the back seat.
18I was informed that Teller, in the back seat of the vehicle, remained unconscious for about 3 minutes. After regaining consciousness, he managed to extricate himself from the back seat and get out of the car where he fell onto the nature strip, face first. He had suffered serious injuries in the collision and could not move.
19A short time later, police, paramedics and the fire brigade arrived at the scene. Teller's injuries were assessed as life-threatening. In the ambulance on the way to hospital, Teller's heart stopped. He was immediately taken to the Emergency Department where he underwent emergency surgery.
20You were extracted from the car by the fire brigade. After assessment by paramedics, it was determined that your injuries were also very serious and life-threatening. You were taken by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital for treatment.
21As a result of these injuries, Brinsley Teller suffered numerous serious injuries, including a severe traumatic brain injury, multiple fractures to his pelvis, a laceration to his liver, damage to his intestines requiring partial removal, a damaged spleen that required removal, spinal fractures between L1 and L5 of his lumbar spine, fractures to his ribs and sternum, bilateral pneumothoraces, a broken left ankle, a fractured left arm and many more specified injuries that are listed at paragraph 27 of the summary of prosecution opening. He spent 151 days in hospital. When he was released on 23 June 2020, he still had extensive injuries that required further surgery and ongoing medical treatment.
22At the plea hearing, I received further information about the injuries of Brinsley Teller. I received a document from Heathmont General Practice, a statement from Croydon Physio and a report from Anne Ward, being a registered nurse and lymphoedema practitioner at an organisation called Melbourne Lymphoedema. I have read those documents, and I take them into account in my assessment of victim impact and the injuries sustained by Brinsley Teller.
23You were also admitted to hospital on 25 January 2020 and treated for your injuries. You underwent a number of surgical procedures, and you were placed in a medically induced coma for a number of days. You sustained broken ribs that required surgery, a punctured lung, concussion and a laceration to your liver. You were released from hospital on 14 February 2020.
24On 8 April 2020, you attended at the Knox police station where you participated in a formal record of interview. In that interview, you stated that you did not recall the collision and had memory loss due to the injuries that you suffered. You could not explain to police why you were in Kalman Drive and stated that you had never been there before. You stated to police that you were not showing off, as that was not in your nature, and claimed to have had full control over your car and knew exactly how it drove in all circumstances.
25The prosecution case, which through your plea of guilty you must be taken to accept, is that you drove dangerously; that is, at a fast, accelerated speed or in a manner that was dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. As a result of that dangerous driving, Brinsley Teller suffered serious injuries. It is also the prosecution case that through the manner of your driving, you placed or may have placed another person in danger of serious injury, and you were reckless as to that danger.
26The maximum penalty for each of these two offences is five years' imprisonment. At the plea hearing, I received victim impact statements from Brinsley Teller and from his partner, Teneille Redwin. Those statements were read to the court by Mr Devlin. I received a compact disc with four files of CCTV footage showing parts of the passage of the vehicle during the course of these events.
27Mr Smallwood, who appeared on your behalf at both the sentence indication hearing and plea hearing, filed written submissions for each of those hearings. They were dated respectively 18 August 2022 and 17 November 2022. Each of those were comprehensive written submissions. Given that I heard submissions at two hearings in this matter, I will treat the defence submissions as a whole across the two hearings.
28This matter was listed for trial on 31 August 2022, with a pre-recording of expert evidence listed on 24 August 2022. The matter came before me for a sentence indication on the eve of those trial dates, as it were, on 18 August 2022.
29At the sentence indication hearing, Mr Smallwood submitted that you had a viable defence to these charges. He referred me to an expert report prepared by Dr George Rechnitzer and filed on behalf of the defence. That report, in very brief compass, stated the opinion that there is a likely possibility that the throttle or accelerator developed a fault which caused the vehicle to accelerate out of control.
30Mr Smallwood referred me to a further statement of Mr Dale Woodland, a mechanical investigator attached to the Collision Reconstruction and Mechanical Investigation Unit of the Victoria Police Forensic Services Centre, who provided a statement in response to the defence expert witness report. Mr Smallwood's submission, in short, was that Mr Woodland's further statement did not contradict the defence expert opinion and the prosecution case could not disprove the findings stated in the defence expert report of Dr Rechnitzer.
31The prosecution did not concede those matters, and if the case were to have gone to trial, then I take it that would have been a significant part of the dispute between the parties.
32I want to make two comments about this matter. First, I am not called upon to resolve this dispute or comment on it in any way. Second, this matter is only relevant to the sentencing exercise in a limited way; that is, it may affect my assessment of the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty and it may impact on my assessment of whether a plea of guilty reflects remorse and acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
33I note that is, of course, the way in which Mr Smallwood couched these submissions. He submitted that there were real triable issues in this case. A plea of guilty would be an admission to all the elements of the offence, which would mean waiving your right to trial, waiving your right to put the prosecution to its proof on each of the elements of the offence, waiving your right to argue a case in response to the allegations and surrendering any chance of being acquitted. I will return to this matter later in these reasons for sentence.
34Mr Smallwood submitted that a parsimonious approach to the sentencing exercise should lead to the conclusion that it would be open to impose a community corrections order in fulfilment of all the relevant sentencing purposes. In support of this submission, Mr Smallwood highlighted the following matters.
35Your plea of guilty has significant utilitarian value and also indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and an acceptance of responsibility for the offending. A plea of guilty to the current charges was offered in October 2020, some two years prior to the sentence indication and plea hearings, with the incident occurring on 25 January 2020, which was then, at the time of the making of those submissions, more than two and a half years prior. Thus, there has been a considerable delay in the finalisation of the matter through no fault of yours.
36You are now a 54-year-old man. You have no prior or subsequent convictions of any type, thus specific deterrence and protection of the community should not loom large in the sentencing exercise. You yourself suffered serious physical injuries requiring numerous surgical procedures, and you were placed in a medically induced coma for a number of days as a result of the collision. You were awaiting further surgery at the time of the plea hearing. Those physical injuries, it was submitted, constitute a form of extra-curial punishment.
37Mr Smallwood submitted that your physical injuries would also impact the hardship that you would experience in custody. Mr Smallwood submitted that you suffered from a mental health condition at the time of sentencing which would mean that it is likely that a prison sentence would weigh more heavily upon you than it would on a person of normal mental health.
38I turn to your personal circumstances. As I have stated, you are currently 54 years old. You are married to your wife, Sandra Richardson. You have two children, being a son who is 32 years old and a daughter who is 24.
39You are employed by a company called Programmed. I was informed that that company is a contractor for Melbourne Water. You have worked either for Melbourne Water or as a contractor for Melbourne Water for approximately three decades. For the past 15 years, you worked at the Eastern Treatment Plant at Carrum. You oversee work of about 60 technicians. I was told that for practical purposes, you need your driver's licence to do this job, thus the mandatory minimum 18 months' loss of licence attached to Charge 1 would constitute a form of punishment, in that it would likely lead to you losing your job. Mr Smallwood relied upon the likely loss of your job as a form of
extra-curial punishment.40I also received across the two hearings a number of documents that were exhibited in evidence. They included a letter from Mr Andrew Dunhill, psychologist; a TAC mental health treatment plan; a letter from your GP, Dr Charitha Ranasinghe; a report from Dr Ravindra Mutha, consultant psychiatrist, dated 9 June 2022; and a follow-up letter from Dr Mutha dated 21 August 2022.
41I received a personal reference letter from your wife, Sandra Richardson, and I also received a letter written by you. I note in relation to these last two documents: these were received without substantial objection from the prosecution; however, objection was taken to certain parts of each of those two letters, which were identified by Mr Devlin, and I put those aspects of those letters aside for the purposes of my consideration.
42At the plea hearing, I also received a bundle of medical documents from Eastern Health, Capital Radiology and the Royal Melbourne Hospital Radiology. These documents outline the physical injuries that you suffered as a result of this incident. I will not repeat those injuries here. However, I do accept that you yourself suffered very significant physical injuries as a result of this incident and that those injuries continue to weigh upon you.
43The report of Dr Mutha outlines your current mental health condition. You described to Dr Mutha a range of symptoms, including flashbacks and intrusive memories of the incident. You described hypervigilance, a tendency to get startled easily, nightmares, insomnia, anxiety, irritability, memory gaps and noise hypersensitivity. You described events that trigger memories of the incident. Dr Mutha stated that diagnostically you present with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder with anxious distress. You have been prescribed medication for these conditions.
44I turn to the prosecution submissions in this matter. Mr Devlin, who appeared on behalf of the prosecution, submitted that general deterrence must be a significant factor in the sentencing exercise. He submitted that the style of acceleration, the fast rate of speed in a powerful car and the prevalence of the offence all call for general deterrence to feature prominently in the sentencing purposes. The prosecution position on sentence was that some gaol time was required to reflect the level of general deterrence required but that a combination sentence with a community corrections order was open.
45Mr Devlin raised the question of whether a community corrections order on its own could reflect the necessary level of general deterrence. Mr Devlin submitted that the Crown position was that a combined sentence would better meet the sentencing principles when synthesised. Mr Devlin indicated that the prosecution accepted that this instance of the offence is not at the highest level but that it is still a serious example of the offence.
46At the plea hearing, Mr Devlin reiterated the prosecution position. Mr Devlin indicated that the prosecution did not take issue with the submission that you have expressed remorse. The prosecution accepted that you are a person of good character, that you have never been in trouble before, that you have no prior or subsequent convictions, and that if sent to prison, this would be your first time in custody.
47The prosecution did not concede that there is evidence to support enlivening the fifth limb of Verdins. However, Mr Devlin did concede that if there were a guilty sentence, as a matter of fact, I could find that you would likely serve a prison sentence harder than others by virtue of your age and that you have never been in trouble before. Mr Devlin reiterated that the prosecution position is that a combined sentence is the appropriate sentence; however, if I were to be against that, it would then require a punitive community corrections order to reflect the seriousness of the offending and to contain the general deterrence that would be required to be reflected in the sentence.
48I turn to the analysis of these matters. I must make an assessment of the objective seriousness of this offending. It is the prosecution case that you drove your vehicle dangerously, in that you drove at a fast, accelerated speed and/or in a manner that was dangerous to the public, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case.
49I note that the prosecution did not allege any particular speed, and there does appear to be some uncertainty about what was the actual precise manner of driving constituting the dangerousness. In any event, through your plea of guilty, you accept that you drove your vehicle in a manner that was dangerous – it seems to me either by driving at a fast, accelerated speed or in a manner that was otherwise dangerous – and I must sentence you on that basis.
50You were driving a vehicle that had been modified for high performance. That must carry a particular responsibility. I note that when interviewed by police, you could not explain why you were in Kalman Drive. You said you had never been there before, you did not recall the collision and had memory loss due to your injuries. You claimed to police that you had full control over your car and knew exactly how to drive it under all circumstances. However, I note that that claim can only be viewed as a general assertion given that you had no memory of the collision.
51The physical injuries sustained by Brinsley Teller were devastating. No summary of those injuries that I can give will do justice to them. In his victim impact statement, Brinsley Teller described the physical injuries and their impact upon him. In addition to the physical injuries, he has suffered depression requiring treatment by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. His mental health has suffered. He has serious ongoing pain and physical limitations. He walks with a limp, which will be a permanent impairment. He has only been able to return to part-time light duties at his job. He has significant loss of earning capacity. He will face permanent debilitating effects.
52Mr Teller's fiancée, Teneille Redwin, also described the impact this incident has had on Mr Teller, on herself and on their relationship. I cannot do justice to Ms Redwin's victim impact statement short of simply repeating it here in full. Suffice to say that she describes palpably the impact this incident has had on Mr Teller and on herself. I have read both victim impact statements closely, and I take them into account in assessing the victim impact in this matter.
53As I understood Mr Smallwood's submission in relation to the seriousness of the offending, he accepted that this is not a case of momentary inattention or similar that often leads to an assessment of low culpability but submitted that this case is absent a number of aggravating features that would put it in a higher category of culpability, and as I understand it, the prosecution accepted that description of the offending.
54Mr Smallwood acknowledged the serious and profound consequences for Mr Teller and described a profound sense of guilt that you carry in relation to this incident. Mr Smallwood submitted that the profound sense of guilt that you experience informs the remorse that you have felt about this matter.
55On any assessment, this must be viewed as a significant example of the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury, and your moral culpability for the offending must also be viewed as significant. Tragically, it is far too often that criminal offending comes before the courts in the form of the manner in which people drive a motor vehicle. Any sentence imposed for an offence such as this must express denunciation of this type of conduct. It must send a message to others in the community that if people choose to drive motor vehicles in a dangerous manner, then they must expect to receive stern punishment.
56In other words, the sentence that I impose upon you today must consider punishment, denunciation and general deterrence as significant sentencing purposes. Given your lack of prior or subsequent offending, I do not see specific deterrence or protection of the community as sentencing purposes that attract significant weight. I must also impose a sentence that allows for your rehabilitation. I note that the maximum penalty for both offences is five years' imprisonment. Both counsel accepted that both offences arise out of the same factual circumstances and an aggregate sentence is appropriate.
57You pleaded guilty after having offered to do so at an early stage in the proceedings. I treat your plea as an early plea of guilty, and accordingly, you are entitled to a significant reduction in the sentence to be imposed. I also take into account that since you first offered to plead guilty, almost two years then elapsed before a plea to these charges was accepted by the prosecution. That delay is unfortunate for all concerned. I accept that the uncertainty of outcome in these proceedings has been hanging over your head for that period of time and no doubt would have been a burden for you. I see this as a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence to impose upon you now.
58I accept that, based on the submissions Mr Smallwood made to me, you had an arguable defence to these charges. I do not weigh into the dispute or make any comment about it, simply to say that I accept that you had an arguable case. Your plea of guilty abandons your right to argue that defence, and you have surrendered any chance of an acquittal of these charges. I accept that your plea of guilty shows an acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice.
59Your plea of guilty has significant utilitarian value. It is also a plea of guilty that was entered during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the criminal justice system in the State of Victoria. I have regard to the principles stated by the Court of Appeal in Worboyes v The Queen and the strong guidance provided to sentencing courts about the nature of the reduction in sentence to be attributed to the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty entered during the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also have regard to other cases from the Court of Appeal such as Rossi v The Queen where the Court of Appeal has applied the principles in Worboyes to the sentencing exercise.
60The principles stated in Worboyes are now clear; I will not repeat them here. Suffice to say that I have particular regard to the comments made at paragraphs 35 to 39 of the decision in Worboyes. I want to make it clear that a part of the reduction in the sentence that you are to receive is as a result of the additional reduction in sentence to follow a plea of guilty as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns experienced in the State of Victoria and the consequent backlog of cases created in the criminal justice system.
61You are now a 54-year-old man. You have no prior or subsequent convictions. There is now, to this date, over three years since the offending incident. I accept Mr Smallwood's submissions that delay can constitute a powerful mitigating factor that focuses attention on issues of rehabilitation and fairness.
62I also accept that you have shown remorse. That is evidenced in the personal reference letter from your wife, Sandra Richardson, and is also evident in matters contained in the report of Dr Mutha, and I accept that your overall conduct, including your plea of guilty, has demonstrated remorse.
63You yourself were seriously injured in this incident. I accept that those physical injuries constitute a form of extra-curial punishment, and I give that matter what I consider to be some significant weight.
64You face mandatory loss of licence, which I was told is likely to lead to a loss of employment. Your employment contract requires you to be licensed to drive a motor vehicle, and you confront the prospect of not being able to perform your role or retain your work if you cannot drive. I accept this matter. However, I do not place any significant weight on this consequence other than on the period of licence disqualification that I must impose.
65I accept the submission of Mr Devlin that there does not appear to be a sufficient evidentiary basis for enlivening the fifth limb of Verdins. However, I do accept, for the reasons conceded by Mr Devlin, that any term of imprisonment for you would be a significant burden, and that includes for the reason of your serious physical injuries. However, that is a matter that I give limited weight to in the overall synthesis of matters before me.
66I have particular regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Boulton v The Queen. Of course, it has been said that the principles in Boulton are not a get-out-of-gaol-free card. However, it seems to me that the principles in Boulton have particular application to this case.
67You have no prior convictions and are a man of excellent previous character. You have shown remorse and demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility for the offending. There has been considerable delay since the commission of the offence. Specific deterrence and protection of the community do not loom large as sentencing factors. Denunciation and general deterrence remain as important factors. However, a properly structured community corrections order is capable of conveying the sentencing purposes of punishment, denunciation and general deterrence whilst at the same time affording the best prospects for rehabilitation.
68I have reread carefully the decision of the Court of Appeal in Boulton, particularly paragraphs 99 to 135, and a consideration of the principles there discussed. It seems to me that these matters, combined with a parsimonious approach to the sentencing exercise in this case, lead me to the view that a community corrections order, properly structured, is an appropriate sentence and one that is capable of fulfilling the necessary sentencing purposes.
69I want to make it clear that I do not see a community corrections order as a light or easy option. A lengthy and onerous community corrections order is capable of constituting onerous punishment with significant consequence. In saying that, I am very mindful that sentencing is a process that often involves balancing competing considerations that are often incommensurable. It seems to me that this is very much the case in the present sentencing exercise.
70The injuries suffered by Brinsley Teller were extremely serious. They have had a life-altering impact upon him, upon his partner Teneille Redwin and no doubt on others in his life. No sentence that I impose will ever fully reflect or represent the gravity of those consequences. However, I hope that the finalisation of this matter will bring a measure of closure for all parties and all those who have been affected by this incident.
71At the conclusion of the plea hearing, I ordered that you be assessed for a community corrections order. I have received and considered that report. I also had a mental health assessment conducted by Forensicare, and I have received and read that report.
72A lengthy community corrections order with a significant period of unpaid community work will contain significant punishment. That punishment will also serve to denounce your conduct and to deter others who may be minded to offend in this or a similar way. I intend to impose conditions allowing for psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to promote your rehabilitation. Of course, the duration of the order will contain both general and specific deterrence, in that if you were to breach this order in any way either by reoffending or by lack of compliance, you may be charged with the offence of breaching the community corrections order and brought back before me to be resentenced on the original charges.
73I also want to indicate that I have moderated the number of hours of unpaid community work to take account of your physical injuries, but I will still impose what I consider to be a significant number of hours.
74In all the circumstances, Mr Richardson, you will be sentenced as follows. On Charges 1 and 2, you will be sentenced to an aggregate community corrections order for a period of three years. I order that you perform 200 hours of unpaid community work. I order that you must attend as directed for mental health treatment. I order that you must participate in programs as directed to reduce the risk of reoffending. Pursuant to s38CA, I order that all of the hours satisfactorily undertaken for treatment and rehabilitation are to be counted as hours of unpaid community work.
75The prosecution has made an application for forfeiture of your vehicle, which I understand is not opposed, and I will make that order in the terms set out in the application.
76I am required by law to cancel your licence and disqualify you from obtaining another one for a minimum period of 18 months. I take into account that a further period has elapsed between the plea hearing and the present date of sentencing, and I will cancel your licence and impose the minimum period of disqualification of 18 months.
77Pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act, I declare that had you not pleaded guilty to the charges, I would have imposed a sentence of nine months' imprisonment in addition to a two-year community corrections order.
78I understand that a copy of the order has been prepared. Mr Smallwood, I will have my associate hand that order to you. If you could take that to Mr Richardson and explain the contents of it to him.
79MR SMALLWOOD: Yes, Your Honour.
80HIS HONOUR: Yes, I was just contemplating whether I need to sign it first, but I do not think I need to.
81MR SMALLWOOD: No.
82HIS HONOUR: Yes, thanks.
83(Community-based order signed and acknowledged.)
84MR SMALLWOOD: Mr Richardson has signed that order, Your Honour.
85HIS HONOUR: Thank you, thank you, Mr Smallwood. Mr Richardson, I take it that Mr Smallwood has explained in brief detail the contents of that order. You will in due course be provided with a copy of the paperwork, and that will contain the conditions of the order. I do not think I am required by law to explain this, but I will do so anyway.
86The conditions of that order are obligations upon you as a matter of law. A community corrections order is something that may be breached in one of two ways. Either if you commit any further offence during the period of the order or if you fail to comply with the conditions of the order, you may be charged with the offence of breaching the order and brought back before me to be resentenced on the original charges.
87Now, having said that, I am confident that you are not someone who will breach this order, and I am sure you will not, and I hope that is right. I wish you luck in relation to the course of that order and for the future, all right.
88HIS HONOUR: Thanks to you both for your assistance in the course of this matter.
89MR SMALLWOOD: As the court pleases.
90HIS HONOUR: Yes, thanks. We will adjourn the court.
‑ ‑ ‑
0
4
0